Have tour conditions really changed that much in the last five years? Do you really believe that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were born five years later, their development would have been significantly delayed?

Which is more likely - that conditions are so different that normal career trajectories are being pushed back by 2-3 years, or that via a statistical fluke there simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the past 4-5 years?

Have tour conditions really changed that much in the last five years? Do you really believe that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were born five years later, their development would have been significantly delayed?

Which is more likely - that conditions are so different that normal career trajectories are being pushed back by 2-3 years, or that via a statistical fluke there simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the past 4-5 years?

I think it's a talent issue. There is nobody coming up who has the weapons of the top 4.

Have tour conditions really changed that much in the last five years? Do you really believe that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were born five years later, their development would have been significantly delayed?

Which is more likely - that conditions are so different that normal career trajectories are being pushed back by 2-3 years, or that via a statistical fluke there simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the past 4-5 years?

There simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the last 4-5 years. Murray and Djokovic were born seven days apart and Nadal is only 11 1/2 months older. That's an awful lot of era-defining slam-winning talent born under the same moon. Throwing a consistently healthy Federer into the mix who might play until he's 35, you have a perfect storm for top end traffic. Nobody, I repeat, nobody currently in the top 20 will win a slam unless they get a dream draw of just zone beyond comprehension for one two-week period.

We have already discussed this to death (poor old dead horse and all that). Slower courts = more physical tennis = longer time needed for players to grow into their prime. One young player to buck the trend? JMP and guess what he is a beast of a man! Look for people like Dimitrov to really turn it on at 24-25 when he has the physical strength to dictate play for the full duration of a match (currently he often flickers out after a strong first set).

It's not about tennis players getting older. It's about not having elite talent like Sampras, Nadal, Federer, etc. These true talent can win slams in their teens. Right now we just don't have any of those sort anymore.

It's not about tennis players getting older. It's about not having elite talent like Sampras, Nadal, Federer, etc. These true talent can win slams in their teens. Right now we just don't have any of those sort anymore.

Have tour conditions really changed that much in the last five years? Do you really believe that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were born five years later, their development would have been significantly delayed?

Which is more likely - that conditions are so different that normal career trajectories are being pushed back by 2-3 years, or that via a statistical fluke there simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the past 4-5 years?

Before 2007/2008, the 3rd spot on the rankings was generally shared between Davydenko, Roddick and Nalbandian. The second spot was occupied after Nadal pushed himself to the top of the rankings. He was so consistently good he, himself, as #2, had enough points to lead the rest of the tour as a dominant #1 in a different era.

Then in 2007, Djokovic came along and claimed the 3rd spot, once again having enough points to be a dominant #1 in a different era. Then Murray comes along with also enough points to be a dominant #1 in another era.

What's happened is that there are four DOMINANT #1 players. They would all be #1 in another era and they're all talented enough to be all time greats.

not sure if anyone else in the thread has mentioned it, but i think the physicality of players present near the top of the game says a lot.

it's become harder to bridge the gap between talented young guys and talented top players because the added dimension of physicality, not just muscle mass, but degree of conditioning. it takes time to build top level conditioning and money to get a trainer to do so. it seems within a couple of generations, its become a lot harder for a pure shotmaker with a typical 18 year old tennis player's physique to shoot up the rankings.

if the climate of tennis (technology, court speed, style of play) stay the way they are or keep moving in the same direction, the breakout age of 17/18 that we're used to seeing regularly before, will become more like 23-25.

not sure if anyone else in the thread has mentioned it, but i think the physicality of players present near the top of the game says a lot.

it's become harder to bridge the gap between talented young guys and talented top players because the added dimension of physicality, not just muscle mass, but degree of conditioning. it takes time to build top level conditioning and money to get a trainer to do so. it seems within a couple of generations, its become a lot harder for a pure shotmaker with a typical 18 year old tennis player's physique to shoot up the rankings. if the climate of tennis (technology, court speed, style of play) stay the way they are or keep moving in the same direction, the breakout age of 17/18 that we're used to seeing regularly before, will become more like 23-25.

good point, but i think work ethic and not taking it seriously enough held him back just as much his mental cramp. i actually think he wouldn't have had as many mental cramps late in matches if he had the conditioning to support his game.
if tomic were to have stayed on track, do you think it could have taken him to the top of the game without improving his fitness? he had a couple great runs early on in the year, beat some quality players, but when he had to play anyone ranked within the top 15, he would crumble. granted his results early on were nothing to sniff at compared to other talented young bucks, but unless he improved his conditioning, he wasn't going to maximize his shotmaking.

like i said, it's possible for a teen to shoot up the rankings, but it's a lot harder to do so nowadays as opposed to previous generations.

Goran did have an easy draw that year. You're saying that getting through a bunch of hard court and clay specialists is "incredibly hard"?

An easy draw? Are you kidding? Goran Ivanisevic had been in an awful slump for at least 18 months before 2001 Wimbledon, was struggling to survive on the main tour, and by the time of 2001 Wimbledon, he was ranked at 125 in the world. Earlier that year, he had travelled for 20+ hours to Melbourne for the Australian Open qualifiers, and lost the first qualifier to Petr Luxa, and then travelled back another 20+ hours the same day he had lost to Luxa. At 2001 Queen's Club, Goran was swept aside by Cristiano Caratti, a one-time decent player and 1991 Australian Open quarter finalist, who was many years past his prime, and by 2001 was a journeyman at best.

Now let's look at Goran's opponents at 2001 Wimbledon. Jonsson in the first round was a journeyman, fair enough, but the others are very tough for someone ranked as low as 125 in the world. Moya is a former major winner (1998 French Open champion), Roddick was a big up-and-coming 18 year old who had beaten Sampras at 2001 Miami and was expected to sweep aside the "washed up" Goran with his serve, Rusedski was playing well in previous matches, dominant on serve, and was dangerous on grass, Safin was the reigning US Open champion, and Henman was never in better grass-court form than he was at this point and was a serious title challenger with a ferocious crowd backing him every step of the way. And Rafter was in his second Wimbledon final in a row and a former 2-time US Open champion.

An easy draw? Are you kidding? Goran Ivanisevic had been in an awful slump for at least 18 months before 2001 Wimbledon, was struggling to survive on the main tour, and by the time of 2001 Wimbledon, he was ranked at 125 in the world. Earlier that year, he had travelled for 20+ hours to Melbourne for the Australian Open qualifiers, and lost the first qualifier to Petr Luxa, and then travelled back another 20+ hours the same day he had lost to Luxa. At 2001 Queen's Club, Goran was swept aside by Cristiano Caratti, a one-time decent player and 1991 Australian Open quarter finalist, who was many years past his prime, and by 2001 was a journeyman at best.

Now let's look at Goran's opponents at 2001 Wimbledon. Jonsson in the first round was a journeyman, fair enough, but the others are very tough for someone ranked as low as 125 in the world. Moya is a former major winner (1998 French Open champion), Roddick was a big up-and-coming 18 year old who had beaten Sampras at 2001 Miami and was expected to sweep aside the "washed up" Goran with his serve, Rusedski was playing well in previous matches, dominant on serve, and was dangerous on grass, Safin was the reigning US Open champion, and Henman was never in better grass-court form than he was at this point and was a serious title challenger with a ferocious crowd backing him every step of the way. And Rafter was in his second Wimbledon final in a row and a former 2-time US Open champion.

Yeah, easy.

Good post. You have my approval Mustard.

__________________
Roger's failures on clay eclipse the totality of Pete's career on clay | Federer, the nephew uncle Toni never had | TTW's official ******* trollhunter

An easy draw? Are you kidding? Goran Ivanisevic had been in an awful slump for at least 18 months before 2001 Wimbledon, was struggling to survive on the main tour, and by the time of 2001 Wimbledon, he was ranked at 125 in the world. Earlier that year, he had travelled for 20+ hours to Melbourne for the Australian Open qualifiers, and lost the first qualifier to Petr Luxa, and then travelled back another 20+ hours the same day he had lost to Luxa. At 2001 Queen's Club, Goran was swept aside by Cristiano Caratti, a one-time decent player and 1991 Australian Open quarter finalist, who was many years past his prime, and by 2001 was a journeyman at best.

Now let's look at Goran's opponents at 2001 Wimbledon. Jonsson in the first round was a journeyman, fair enough, but the others are very tough for someone ranked as low as 125 in the world. Moya is a former major winner (1998 French Open champion), Roddick was a big up-and-coming 18 year old who had beaten Sampras at 2001 Miami and was expected to sweep aside the "washed up" Goran with his serve, Rusedski was playing well in previous matches, dominant on serve, and was dangerous on grass, Safin was the reigning US Open champion, and Henman was never in better grass-court form than he was at this point and was a serious title challenger with a ferocious crowd backing him every step of the way. And Rafter was in his second Wimbledon final in a row and a former 2-time US Open champion.

Yeah, easy.

I totally agree. that might not be the hardest draw ever but still a very tough one with some big names. yes safin and moya were not exactly grass courters but still not easy to beat. I would say for that time (when there was no big 4 and sampras and agassi were getting old) it was an average draw. most draws from 99-03 were quite mediocre.

I totally agree. that might not be the hardest draw ever but still a very tough one with some big names. yes safin and moya were not exactly grass courters but still not easy to beat. I would say for that time (when there was no big 4 and sampras and agassi were getting old) it was an average draw. most draws from 99-03 were quite mediocre.

With Sampras out of the draw(Thanks to Federer), any draw becomes much easier.

Dimitrov is the real deal, and a few others, but otherwise I agree. ATP is done and tennis could be abolished a few years from now because there is no one out there with the talent and skill to win slams.

And he beat Pete Sampras at the age of 19. That feat alone is greater than winning a grand slam IMO.

When I mean he beat Sampras, I mean he beat Sampras at the Centre Court of Wimbledon, while Sampras was a 7-time defending champ! If it wasn't for Federer, Pete would have had his 8th Wimbledon title easily. Henman, Goran, and Rafter were all Pete's lap dog in the 90s.

When I mean he beat Sampras, I mean he beat Sampras at the Centre Court of Wimbledon, while Sampras was a 7-time defending champ! If it wasn't for Federer, Pete would have had his 8th Wimbledon title easily. Henman, Goran, and Rafter were all Pete's lap dog in the 90s.

I doubt it. Sampras wasn't going to win 2001 Wimbledon unless his form improved considerably. Even Barry Cowan gave him a big scare. And Goran has beaten Sampras at Wimbledon before, serving 36 aces and not even facing a break point during a 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2 win in their 1992 Wimbledon semi final.

As for Rafter, he frustrated the hell out of Sampras in the summer of 1998, probably more than anyone else ever managed on the tennis court, and Rafter had his chances to go 2 sets up in their 2000 Wimbledon final.